Kevin Drum is extremely unhappy about the Iraqi WMD situation. It seems to me that there are three possibilities:

1. We suffered a truly massive intelligence failure: Iraq had next to no WMD around.
2. Donald Rumsfeld's Pentagon failed to realize what its mission was, and Iraq's WMD are now in the hands of guys who (unlike Saddam Hussein)cannot be deterred--guys who don't like to live in palaces, and don't hope to die in bed--and we are in much bigger trouble than before.
3. President Bush deliberately lied to the Congress about Saddam Hussein in order to get a resolution authorizing the attack on Iraq.

It seems to me that the grownups in the Republican Party need to find out--and find out quickly--which of these three possibilities is correct. If (1) is correct, they need to tell us so and need to fix the "intelligence community" and fix it now. If (2) is correct, they need to tell us so and need to fix the NSC and the Pentagon, and fix it now. If (3) is correct, they need to tell us that George W. Bush needs to be impeached and needs to be impeached now.

These are the options, and this might just sink in with the public at some point. 1) They were completely criminally incompetent. 2) They were worse than incompetent and let terrorists get ALL of those weapons of mass destruction to use against us in the future. 3) They lied in order to get support to invade another country. Let me know if you see any other possibilities here.

Update - My mother came up with a valid fourth possibility - mental imbalance. Hypothesis: Bush is mentally imbalanced and paranoid, so even with no evidence of a threat they concluded there was a threat anyway. I say not likely that all the relevant people in the administration and military could be mentally imbalanced in the same way, but logically it is a valid fourth possibility.

From David J. Sirota, Communications Director, U.S. House Appropriations Committee - Minority:

With President Bush's circus stunt photo-op last week reportedly delaying the return of the U.S.S. Lincoln and its crew by at least a day, Democrats have demanded a formal inquiry into how much the Pentagon and U.S. taxpayers were forced to cough up to sponsor the event. According to our preliminary estimates, one day of aircraft carrier steaming (aka. energy to power the boat at sea) costs roughly $800,000 to $1 million. This does not include the added huge costs of running regular air patrols over the carrier for the extra day, deploying the regular sea-based protection for the boat for the extra day, paying extra costs to keep the crew fed at sea, security for the President, the cost of flying the President out to the boat by jet, etc.

Attached you will find a one-page Adobe PDF document produced by the House Appropriations Committee using these newly released figures.

Bush claimed there were tons of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq, and on his word we invaded the country. But now they can't find any WMD.

Which is worse? That Bush was lying, using WMD as a pretext for war, terrifying the American public to achieve his own personal, political and financial goals? Or that Bush was telling the truth, and there were WMD -- and Bush's invasion was bungled -- not securing the WMDs -- allowing the Iraqis to give them all to terrorists, who will use them against us?

Nevertheless, beyond all these more obvious anti-environmental motivations there lies a more deep-seated inspiration. Difficult as it may be to believe, many of the conservatives who have great influence in the Bush administration and now in Congress are governed by a Higher Power.

In his book "The Carbon Wars," Greenpeace activist Jeremy Leggett tells how he stumbled upon this otherworldly agenda. During the Kyoto climate change negotiations, Leggett candidly asked Ford Motor Company executive John Schiller how opponents of the pact could believe there is no problem with "a world of a billion cars intent on burning all the oil and gas available on the planet?" The executive asserted first that scientists get it wrong when they say fossil fuels have been sequestered underground for eons. The Earth, he said, is just 10,000, not 4.5 billion years old, the age widely accepted by scientists.

Then Schiller confidently declared, "You know, the more I look, the more it is just as it says in the Bible." The Book of Daniel, he told Leggett, predicts that increased earthly devastation will mark the "End Time" and return of Christ. Paradoxically, Leggett notes, many fundamentalists see dying coral reefs, melting ice caps and other environmental destruction not as an urgent call to action, but as God's will. In the religious right worldview, the wreck of the Earth can be seen as Good News! [emphasis added - DJ]

Some true believers, interpreting biblical prophecy, are sure they will be saved from the horrific destruction brought by ecosystem collapse. They'll be raptured: rescued from Earth by God, who will then rain down seven ghastly years of misery on unbelieving humanity. Jesus' return will mark the Millennium, when the Lord restores the Earth to its green pristine condition, and the faithful enjoy a thousand years of peace and prosperity.

One powerful fringe group, the Reconstructionists, doesn't speak of the "End Time" at all, Bokaer notes. They put the onus for the Lord's return on their own political activism. Reconstructionists say that Christ will return only when a righteous nation acts to purge unrepentant sinners and applies biblical law to its populace. They want to spread the Gospel in a political context, making the Bible the foundation of U.S. jurisprudence. That includes an end to environmental regulation.
...

Such misinformed viewpoints would be of little import except that, in the 1980s, they began permeating the Republican Party. That's when Republican strategists – eager to broaden the party's narrow base of wealthy corporate supporters – partnered with religious right leaders such as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, who agreed to politicize their followers and bring them into the GOP, according to Bokaer.

Working through fundamentalist, Pentecostal and charismatic churches, the Christian Coalition has promoted right-wing Republican candidates by mailing voter guides at election time – 30 million in 1994; another 45 million in 1996; and 70 million in 2000 to support candidate Bush, reports the watchdog group People for the American Way.

There is so much more in this article, and it rings true because it agrees with much that I have been reading about these right wingnuts in my research. I'm a little shaken up so instead of saying anything about it I'll ask you to go read the whole article. Oh yeah, by the way, some of the wealthier Reconstructionists are buying up some of the voting machine companies. (If blogspot doesn't scroll to the right piece, search for 'CNP' and 'Ahmanson'.)

Update - While researching the right's web of anti-environmental organizations and their funding would be a lifetime career in itself, I came across this group, Interfaith Coalition for Environmental Stewardship (ICES), one more right-wing organization claiming God gave the planet to humans for "stewardship." If you want to see where they're "coming from" check out the organizations they link to. They have a subtle message that translates to the usual right-wing line: environmentalists are socialsts who are trying to destroy capitalism, which is God's law.

I have been through several Dean days. I'm talking about former Governor Howard Dean of Vermont, who is running for President in the 2004 election. Saturday a week ago I attended two Dean house parties, each of which involved conference calls of approximately an hour, with Governor Dean answering questions from groups in different cities. Then I saw Dean speak in San Francisco last Tuesday evening. His speech was an order of magnitude refined from the California Democratic convention speech you may have seen online and the crowd was yelling and cheering. Before the event there was a pretty good crowd of "Meetup" members gathered out front to greet him. There was such a feeling of energy and hope.

This last Saturday I went to a local Democratic Party event. In private discussions on the upcoming Democratic primaries, Dean seems to be the main subject. There were Kerry supporters present, but they are taking more of a pragmatic than an enthusiastic position – they're betting that Kerry will be the nominee and they want to be "on board" early. These Kerry supporters have nothing bad to say about Dean. Most will tell you they agree with Dean more than with Kerry on issues. (The Lieberman supporters I have met appear to be well aware of where things are going, and complain about how "liberal" the primary voters are.)

Several old-time Democrat pros have told me that they haven't seen anything like Dean in a long time. Three different individuals have said that his speech at the Cal. Dem. Convention was one of the best they have ever seen, and the way it inspired the crowd there tells them that this is a different kind of candidate. They see an energy and detect an ability to attract not just base Democrats, but to reach out to "swing voters" and even Southerners. Many mentioned a feeling that Dean will be able to draw young people back into the election process. I'm talking pragmatic jaded state-wide professionals, and you do not see this kind of enthusiasm from this crowd very often. Usually it's pragmatic and cynical talk but this time I am hearing optimistic, enthusiastic support. This is what is special about Dean's candidacy. Dean already has a large (20,000+) Meetup volunteer network operating nationwide because of this ability to inspire enthusiasm. Now this is almost year before the first primary, and we're seeing this kind of energy and numbers.

I think that after you have actually seen Dean speak, you're a believer, and this is why the numbers are growing so fast, so soon. This ability to make a personal impression through a speech is important. I was a Kerry supporter until I met Kerry, and will still support him if he gets the nomination, but I have to say that Dean is bringing out an enthusiasm in so many people I am talking to. Kerry doesn't have an enthusiastic, inspirational, energizing style. He does have credentials and can challenge Bush on National Security as well as making an issue of Bush's AWOL service record, and I hope he does this before the election even though Dean will be the nominee.

There is an energy around Dean's candidacy and I think Dean has the message and personality to win the nomination and the national center, too. I haven't seen anything like it and I've been around long enough to have gone to see Gene McCarthy in Detroit in 68.

Seeing the Forest and other weblogs have been writing about the need for a "Message Amplification Infrastructure" to counter the Wurlitzer of the right. Developing these infrastructure organizations will take a lot of money, so we need to look at how this can be done.

There is actually more money available on the moderate/progressive side, but it is used in a different way. Moderate/progressive philanthropists have evolved a system of "program funding" -- providing money for specific programs with the intent of doing good through specific, measurable, accountable individual projects. The idea is that this program money is more results-oriented. Moderate/progressive foundation funding is rarely provided for general operations use, especially by the kind of advocacy organizations we are talking about building.

I have been researching and am going to be writing about this problem of persuading moderate/progressive philanthropic foundations to provide funding for general operating expenses for advocacy organizations – the organizations that will function as a message amplification infrastructure for our side. Stay tuned.

By now we should have learned that the Bush people lie. They use words to cover their actions. They use words to divert attention, to confuse and distract people so they won't see or understand what is being done.

By now we should understand that we need to look at their actions instead of their words.

Let's take a look at Iraq and see what was done and not done. Some things done: The PR for the Iraq operation began in earnest in September 2002, timed to correspond with the election and used effectively to manipulate voters and intimidate opponents. Then we invaded a country that had not attacked us, had not even threatened us, and did not even appear on the surface to have the means of doing any harm to the United States should they decide to try.

On the ground, the invasion operation immediately secured the oil fields and infrastructure -- even the oil ministry building. This was carefully planned, and the troops and equipment necessary to accomplish this were in place at the beginning of the invasion. The oil was flowing again within weeks.

This is what was done.

The Iraq operation did not secure suspected WMD sites. We did not plan for this, and did not provide the troops necessary and resources necessary to accomplish this. In fact, we still have not sent the necessary forces or equipment to secure suspected WMD sites.

The Iraq operation also did not plan for or provide the forces necessary to secure and protect the people of Iraq and their heritage. We still have not sent the necessary forces or other resources.

This is what was not done.

I read somewhere that the U.S. "Public Diplomacy" operation for the Iraq war was the largest PR operation in history. This should provide us with a clue about how to understand what is happening. We are being subject to a massive PR operation, which means that a fog of words is being laid down to obscure actions, and to "soften us up" to accept what is occurring. The very words "Public Diplomacy" and "PR" themselves are used to confuse people. The words mean "propaganda", but propaganda is a word that people understand and, to some degree, are prepared to defend against – when people hear that word they know that they are about to hear lies intended to confuse people. "Public Diplomacy" and "PR" are substituted as a way around that defense.

We KNOW the Bush people lie and we know they are very good at it. This means we should learn to step back, cover our ears, not listen to what they SAY and stop being confused and distracted by the fog of words they lay down to obscure what they DO. The WORDS are just a tactic - ANYthing the Bush people SAY - their words are just smoke and fog laid down to cover what they DO.

And we must teach others to do the same - to learn to look at what they do and not be confused by what they say.

The world has learned some lessons from past regimes that relied on deception to mask their agenda. The Stalinists/Soviets were masters of the use of propaganda, and the world learned to look at their actions not their words. The Nazis were expert liars. They mastered the art of lying – propaganda – and used it effectively to confuse and conquer all of Europe. The Nazis were finally defeated only after enough people came to understand this. People came to understand that the Nazis were liars, and that they used techniques designed to influence and confuse people. People eventually learned to ignore what the Nazis said, and to just fight them. The fight against the propaganda of these regimes is the origin of why people today understand that they must put up their defenses when they hear the term "propaganda." They learned to say, "Oh, that's just propaganda, we should ignore it and look at what they are doing instead."

Now we have another crowd that is willing to lie and use even more sophisticated psychological techniques to confuse and divert people. The people behind the words now are the same people who marketed tobacco -- they are REALLY GOOD at using words -- they managed to get much of the public to give them their money and then kill themselves! They are that good. They are better at this than we can even understand.

Again: We invaded and secured the oil fields and the oil ministry. We did not secure WMD or bring order to the country. If you look at what was DONE and ignore what was SAID I think it becomes obvious what this was all about – it becomes clear that Iraq's oil was the only goal. Everything else is just words.

I predict that the Republicans are going to start accusing the Democrats of exploiting 9/11 for political gain. The Wurlitzer is going to be talking about nothing else all through summer 04 until the election. If they do it right, it will be the major issue in the campaign: those horrible, despicable, un-American, treasonous Democrats using 9/11 to try to win the election.

The transformation of active citizens into passive consumers was enabled by the Federal Communications Commission under Ronald Reagan's Mark Fowler, who declared "the perception of broadcasters as community trustees should be replaced by a view of broadcasters as marketplace participants."

Community replaced by market. One-citizen-one-vote replaced by one-dollar-one-vote. That kind of sums it all up.

From the piece:

TV's Fox could not get away with its shameless shilling for the White House if the Fairness Doctrine were still in place, and radio's Clear Channel monopoly would not be able to impose wall-to-wall Limbaugh, Hannity and Savage, etc., on the public if broadcasters were accountable to public opinion rather than the dictates of plutocrats.

If Republicans try to tell you that the media is liberal, ask them why they oppose the Fairness Doctrine.

forest: This is the core of the conclusions of the book Moral Politics by George Lakoff, examining the metaphores that liberals and conservatives use in their internal cognitive processes of how they see the country

tendentious: that you're a pansy?

forest: Conservatives use "strick father family" metaphore for the country. Liberals use "nurturing parent family" metaphores

tendentious: right. you're a pansy!

forest: They believe this is the best kind of family and use that as a metaphore for how the country should be run

I'm going to write soon about Howard Dean, and the South Carolina Democratic candidate gathering last night. But my first impression is that Leiberman handed the Republicans more than a few quotes to use against the eventual Democrat candidate in the next election. For example, he complained about "big spending" programs like health care.

Update - in the debate Leiberman proudly says he's one of the Democrats who came out against Clinton. Isn't that just great.

The U.S. government this week launched its Arabic language satellite TV news station for mostly Muslim Iraq. It is being produced in a studio – Grace Digital Media – controlled by fundamentalist Christians who are rabidly pro-Israel. That's grace as in "by the grace of God."

Grace Digital Media is controlled by a fundamentalist Christian millionaire, Cheryl Reagan, who last year wrested control of Federal News Service, a transcription news service, from its former owner, Cortes Randell. Randell says he met Reagan at a prayer meeting, brought her in as an investor in Federal News Service, and then she forced him out of his own company.

Grace Digital Media and Federal News Service are housed in a downtown Washington, D.C. office building, along with Grace News Network. When you call the number for Grace News Network, you get a person answering "Grace Digital Media/Federal News Service." According to its web site, Grace News Network is "dedicated to transmitting the evidence of God's presence in the world today."

"Grace News Network will be reporting the current secular news, along with aggressive proclamations that will 'change the news' to reflect the Kingdom of God and its purposes," GNN proclaims.
...

But Mower said she couldn't get us a copy of the contract between BBG and Grace Digital Media. Nor could she say how Grace Digital was chosen as the production studio. [emphasis mine - DJ]

Grace News Network proclaims that it will be a "unique tool in the Lord's ministry plan for the world," according to the company's mission statement. "Grace News Network provides networking links and portals to various ministries and news services that will be of benefit to every Christian believer and seeker of truth."

Just how DID they get this contract? Was this an open bidding process or more corrupt insider cronyism from the Bush gang? Funneling government money to the Christian far-right wingnuts.

Hiring this company doesn't fit at all with the WORDS the Administration is using. In fact, it contradicts those words. So many of their actions contradict their words, and so few support them. If you look at what they are DOING instead of the fog of words they are spreading around, you'll see that they appear to be following an Ann Coulter foreign policy, "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."

While Bush administration officials say they welcome the offer, they also say they worry about how such events may be perceived around the world and are urging a different kind of parade for a different kind of war fought in a very different era.

Rather than victory parades that might appear to be gloating, the Pentagon would prefer celebrations that emphasize the recognition of fighting forces' accomplishment in toppling a dictator.
...
The Bush administration, which has shown great discipline in preparing its public message during the campaign against terror, wants the world to see an America honoring liberation, freedom and democratic ideals, and not gloating over a fallen adversary in the Arab world.

They're not allowed to use the word "victory." And now it was about "toppling a dictator" instead of saving the United States from the imminent threat posed by Iraq's massive weapons of mass destruction programs?

It's all about the WORDS to this crowd. It's all psy-ops, here and abroad. Lean to look at what they DO, not what they say. The words are just a cloud of smoke and fog and are designed to obscure what is happening.

Since they can't use "victory" they should just use the correct word, "OIL."

If you want to understand the Social Security Trust Fund and the charges by Republicans that it is a sham - and how Bush's tax cuts for the rich are really paid for with your retirement money - read this over at P.L.A.

I received an e-mail from the Democratic Party yesterday. (No this is not a big deal secret insider getting-my-instructions thing - you can sign up at their website and get the e-mails, too.) In the e-mail they have this from Sen. John Kerry:

Massachusetts Senator John Kerry"President Bush has made it a top priority to stack the federal court with judges that represent the far right wing of his party. He will not miss an opportunity to nominate ultra-conservative judges to the nation's highest court, putting our most precious rights at grave risk. A retreat on our freedoms will affect all Americans. Everyone must get involved now in the fight to prevent Bush from stacking the Supreme Court with ideological extremists."

This is great to hear. I heard him speak on this subject at a fundraiser in December. When asked about Bush's extreme judicial appointments he said he would NOT oppose right-wing judicial appointments based on their ideology, only on their qualifications. I don't remember the exact words but I have verified this with someone else who was in the room at the time.

In yesterday's statement Kerry still does not clearly say he will personally vote against right-wing judicial nominees. (Kerry's campaign website issues page does not list this as an issue.) It's great to hear that Sen. Kerry might be coming around and I'm not criticizing him if he is changing his position. I will, however, credit Governor Howard Dean for putting on the pressure that Kerry is (sort-of) responding to.

I was an enthusiastic Kerry supporter until I met him. I'll still support him if he is the nominee. But...

Note - I called the Kerry campaign for clarification on his position this morning but the call was not returned as promised before 5pm EST, so I assume they went home. I've had this experience of the Kerry campaign not calling back before.

In the speech last night President Bush very clearly said that the Iraq war was part of his 'pledge' to bring to justice the terrorists responsible for Sept. 11:

"The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001 and still goes on.

That terrible morning, 19 evil men, the shock troops of a hateful ideology, gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the beginning of the end of America.
...

In the battle of Afghanistan, we destroyed the Taliban, many terrorists and the camps where they trained. We continue to help the Afghan people lay roads, restore hospitals and educate all of their children.
...

Nineteen months ago I pledged that the terrorists would not escape the patient justice of the United States. And as of tonight nearly one half of Al Qaida's senior operatives have been captured or killed.
...

The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We have removed an ally of Al Qaida and cut off a source of terrorist funding.

And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more.
...

In these 19 months that changed the world, our actions have been focused and deliberate and proportionate to the offense. We have not forgotten the victims of September the 11th, the last phone calls, the cold murder of children, the searches in the rubble. With those attacks, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States, and war is what they got.
...

The enemies of freedom are not idle, and neither are we. Our government has taken unprecedented measures to defend the homeland and we will continue to hunt down the enemy before he can strike. "

Tom Daschle said yesterday Bush deserved "great credit" for his leadership during the war.

I have something to say to the Democratic leadership. What Bush is doing is dishonest, immoral, illegal and extremely dangerous. Please take a step back and look at what has been happening to our country and the world. Bush has made WAR on another country without provocation of any kind, using lies like those in this speech to redirect America's anger to serve his own financial and political purposes. There is no greater crime than making unprovoked war on another country. Their fog of propaganda and lies has obscured your vision. You must get past the words and look at what they did -- I'll say it again, the United States has illegally invaded another country! There is no way to get around that. All the words about liberty and freedom and our mission and good and evil are just talk. Read the transcript of the speech and look at what is really being said -- reading the words will help you get past the sophisticated psy-ops tricks that are being used. Compare what is being said to what has really occurred. If you let Bush get away with this you are allowing this precedent to stand, abdicating your responsibility to all of the people of the United States and the world. This must be about more than just your re-election.

Okay, okay, I know you're probably already seen this, but I think it is such an important piece that I'm going to point to it, too. William Greider has a piece in The Nation titled, Rolling Back the 20th Century. Greider details the goals of the right, and I think it is worth reading the whole thing. I read it a few days ago and have been thinking about it a lot. Here's just a little bit.

The movement's grand ambition--one can no longer say grandiose--is to roll back the twentieth century, quite literally. That is, defenestrate the federal government and reduce its scale and powers to a level well below what it was before the New Deal's centralization. With that accomplished, movement conservatives envision a restored society in which the prevailing values and power relationships resemble the America that existed around 1900, when William McKinley was President. Governing authority and resources are dispersed from Washington, returned to local levels and also to individuals and private institutions, most notably corporations and religious organizations. The primacy of private property rights is re-established over the shared public priorities expressed in government regulation. Above all, private wealth--both enterprises and individuals with higher incomes--are permanently insulated from the progressive claims of the graduated income tax.

Please read this important piece. I think Greider is right-on with his analysis.

Quaker in a Basement asks the question, "Who Will Be First? (and When?)" As I read the posts on this site, this blogger sounds a lot like me! Must be brilliant! (You have to scroll down to that entry because blogspot links aren't working today - as usual...)

The official unemployment rate measures people who are actively looking for work (about 8.5 million?). But we are in an unusual situation because so many people have been out of work for so long that they have given up (1.6 million), taken part-time jobs (another 4.7 million?), or are "underemployed" -- working at a lower level or for less pay than before -- former execs working at Wal-Mart, etc. I haven't seen a good statistic for how many people are really out of work or underemployed. And I would usually know where to look for a number like this. I think I read somewhere that 75 million people are not working now. That includes students, stay-at-home wives, elderly, etc. Plus we have 2 million in prison now. Does anyone know where to look for the real unemployment number?

As well as not finding and weapons of mass destruction in Iraq - or anything else except oil to justify our invasion - the Times of India asks where are all the Saddam "doubles?" The whole story is good, and funny.

Please help Seeing the Forest meet expenses. You can contribute using Paypal or Amazon by clicking either of the following buttons. Thanks!
I took out the Amazon "donate button" because they are a red company, helping fund the right.